Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

Lord Lester’s "unfair" ban from Parliament for sexually harassing a woman 12 years ago was blocked yesterday after more than 100 peers rebelled against their own watchdog.

The 82-year-old peer said he now looked forward to “restoring his reputation” which had been shredded after the Lords privileges and conduct committee recommended his four-year suspension.

A women’s rights campaigner had complained that Lord Lester had told her: “Sleep with me and I will make you a baroness”.

But a growing number of peers complained that Lord Lester, once one of the country’s most eminent human rights lawyers, had been treated unfairly, insisting his alleged victim Jasvinder Sanghera should have been cross-examined to test the credibility of claims, dating back to 2007. Ms Sanghera had told six people at the time before making an official complaint last year.

Lord Pannick QC, a close friend and former colleague of Lord Lester said the findings of the standards watchdog had “destroyed” his friend’s reputation and called on peers to back his amendment to block the suspension.

He told the Lords that days after the alleged harassment, Ms Sanghera, 53, had sent Lord Lester a book thanking the peer for his support and signed it with “love and admiration”. More than two years later, she sent him another of her books, signed “with love and respect”.

Lord Pannick said that rules had prevented the victim’s cross-examination and as a result the investigation lacked a “basic standard of fairness”.

Yesterday Lord lester thanked his friend and fellow peers for their backing. He said in a statement: “I would like to thank David Pannick and those members of the Lords who supported him today recognising the importance of process and now look forward to restoring my reputation.”

Jasvinder Sanghera in 2007, winning a Women of the Year AwardCredit:
Yui Mok

Baroness Shackleton, a Tory peer and lawyer who voted against the suspension, had told the Lords: “I am extremely uneasy at convicting a fellow peer of misconduct with this standard of investigation.”

Earlier in the day, Baroness Nicholson, a Liberal democrat peer, had suggested Ms Sanghera should have come forward at the time, telling the BBC that “we women are going to lose so much” if “driven by emotion” to make complaints that are now 12 years old.

After a long debate, peers voted yesterday by 101 to 78 to block the suspension and forcing it back to the committee for a rethink.

Ms Sanghera, who had waived her right to anonymity, spoke yesterday of her distress at the Lords’ decision and said it would deter victims from coming forward in the future.

“I felt like I was being abused and bullied all over again,” she told The Daily Telegraph, “His [Lord Lester’s] friends and colleagues were basically taking his side, basically talking about his reputation.

“As an advocate for women, I could not in confidence suggest to them that, if they have a complaint, to complain to the House of Lords. I wouldn’t want to subject them to what I have been through - and to how I feel today.”

She added: “I sat on this for 11 years. The memories don’t fade, they get stronger, in terms of the abuse. I wanted this to go through a process, for people to look at this independently, to change a system and to achieve closure. That was my objective.”

Rachel Krys, co-director of End Violence Against Women Coalition, said it “inevitably might put people off coming forward in future” while Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society said: “Jasvinder clearly convinced the House of Lords’ authorities that she is telling the truth. We know that all too often women in these circumstances are not believed and the balance of power is in favour of the alleged harasser.”

Lord Pannick, who led the revolt

The peer revolt against the planned suspension of Lord Lester had been growing since it was announced on Monday. The Lords’ disciplinary procedures for investigating sexual harassment complaints had not been tested before.

The Lords’ Commissioner for Standards had never previously investigated such a claim.

The Privileges and Conduct Committee, which had recommended the suspension of Lord Lester until 2022, will now have to reconsider the ban.

Lord McFall, Senior Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords, who had wanted the suspension, said: “I am deeply disappointed by today’s decision by the House to send the report into the conduct of Lord Lester back to the Privileges and Conduct Committee for further consideration. “I fully support the Commissioner for Standards and the work she has undertaken for many months. Every step of the way she followed the processes as agreed by the House and that have not been questioned before today.”